Hi Rowan,
seems this taxon change was no lucky decision for different reason.
1st one, so far it was useful to regard all apples domesticated for edible fruits as members of one specified hybrid, and we could manage to decide that hybrid name "domestica" was valid and had priority, it might be named correctly: Malus × domestica, meaning with cross sign instead of x, and space between.
2nd and further ones: too many diverging OPINIONS how to treat our apples, so changing this name won't change anything else, any discussion about preferring other taxonomic combinations, whether hybrids or not could not improve anything.

Dear Rowan i am botanist like you are, so i know about propper usage of this crossing sign to indicate hybrids between species or genera.
And i clearly may say that not all proposals of this IAPT are well done, there are contradictions within.
To let space between × and Genushybrid or specieshybrid does make sense, because of readability, this sign can't be part of some word anyway, so it is simply logic not to adhere × to Gh. or sh. WITHOUT space.
Next argument, one could use lower x to replace × so far this was not "available" - anyone thought about electronic searching functions, sorting or the like?
For this reason we got to use the sign here, it is simply necessary for the system, please do read at curators guide, and please give it a space, so anyone sees at first look there is no x to read!
You commented Malus × domestica would indicate this was "a hybrid between M. and domestica", NO it does not, but says this is member of genus M. and a specieshybrid named domestica.
This crossing sign × is just used to tell us: be aware this is a hybrid, no "common" species or genus, hence my logic argumentation free of need to bound to this code.

I may regard M. domestica as collective term for a mixed group of hybrids of different origin and ancestors, yet this group does "behave" like a functional species, the majoirity of cultivated apples will cross successfully with each other.
So the taxonomic combination M. × domestica would not improve much, just telling there was A SINGLE hybrid between two distinct M. species, so far someone would prove this to be true we should use it.
If you do prefer to indicate our apples arose by hybridizations you are wished to corrigate this name.

Kind greetings
Erwin

The output taxon should be "Malus × domestica" if you want to use the nomenclature for hybrids. Otherwise, I have no problem with it, as long as a single taxon page for "Malus domestica" is active.

All three taxon names (Malus domestica, Malus × domestica, and Malus ×domestica) have been added to the one page so anyone should be able to find it whatever name they wish to use. I have been given advice by one of New Zealand's leading plant taxonomists (Peter de Lange) that Malus ×domestica is correct, and I trust his judgement. I don't wish to argue about this any more because I have better things to do, so if you don't agree then by all means change it back.